El Descifrador de Señales de Alerta en Ofertas de Trabajo
Por qué importa este prompt
Candidates who accept roles with unresolved scope-salary mismatches report burnout and involuntary turnover within the first year at meaningfully higher rates — the cost isn't just a wasted application, it's months of income and resume disruption if the mismatch becomes a bad-fit exit.
Para qué lo usamos
You found a promising job posting for a 'Senior Marketing Manager' role at a startup and want to check for scope/salary mismatches and interview-process red flags before spending your evening writing a cover letter.
Prompt
Act as a career coach who has reviewed thousands of job postings and tracked which red flags actually predicted bad hiring outcomes for candidates. CONTEXT: - My current situation: [ACTIVELY SEARCHING / PASSIVELY BROWSING / URGENTLY NEED A JOB] - My risk tolerance for an imperfect role right now: [LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH] - The job posting text: [PASTE FULL JOB POSTING HERE] TASK: Analyze this posting across three dimensions: 1. Scope realism — does the requirements list match the seniority level and stated salary (if given)? Flag phrases like "wear many hats," "other duties as assigned," or skill lists that don't match the title. 2. Compensation transparency — is a salary range disclosed? If disclosed, does it plausibly match the requirements list? If undisclosed, note that as a flag. 3. Process and structure signals — anything indicating an unclear reporting line, an unusually high number of interview rounds for the seniority level, or vague team/role descriptions. CONSTRAINTS: - Do not flag normal, boilerplate job-posting language as a red flag — only flag things with a specific, plausible negative interpretation. - For every flag raised, note how serious it is given my stated risk tolerance. - Do not recommend whether to apply — only surface the risks so I can decide. OUTPUT FORMAT: 1. Flagged Issues (bulleted, one line each: [flag] — [why it matters] — [severity: low/medium/high given my risk tolerance]) 2. Clean Signals (2-3 things about this posting that are actually reassuring, if any) 3. Interview Questions to Ask (3-5 specific, non-confrontational questions designed to get honest answers about the flagged issues)
Resultado
Flagged Issues:
- Requirements list (10+ years experience, $2M budget ownership, direct P&L accountability) reads like a Director or VP-level role, but the salary range ($70K-$85K) and title ("Manager") suggest a mid-level position — severity: HIGH. This mismatch usually means either the posting is aspirational and will be negotiated down in scope during interviews, or the company genuinely expects VP-level output at manager-level pay.
- No mention of team size or who this role reports to — severity: MEDIUM given your stated medium risk tolerance. "Direct P&L accountability" without clarity on team support suggests you might be doing this largely solo.
- Posting uses the phrase "wear many hats and take on projects as they arise" in the culture section — severity: MEDIUM. Combined with the scope mismatch above, this suggests unclear boundaries on what "marketing manager" actually means day to day.
Clean Signals:
- Salary range is disclosed upfront, which rules out the most common compensation red flag (total non-disclosure).
- The posting specifies a clear reporting structure at the executive level ("reports to the CMO"), even though team size isn't mentioned — that's more transparency than most postings at this stage of funding provide.
Interview Questions to Ask:
- "Can you walk me through what a typical week looks like for whoever is currently in this role, or the person who held it most recently?" — surfaces actual day-to-day scope versus the posting's aspirational language.
- "How is the $2M budget currently allocated across channels, and who else touches decisions on that spend?" — reveals whether "budget ownership" means sole discretion or a more collaborative process.
- "What does the team supporting this role look like today, and are there plans to grow it?" — gets at whether you'd be doing VP-level work with zero direct reports.
- "Was this role budgeted at this range from the start, or has the scope evolved since the req was opened?" — a good-faith way to ask "did you write a Director job description and put a Manager salary on it" without saying that directly.
Las ofertas de trabajo son documentos de marketing, no descripciones de puestos — y leerlas al pie de la letra es la razón por la que los candidatos terminan tres rondas de entrevistas adentro de un puesto sin alcance definido, una banda salarial que no corresponde con la lista de requisitos, o una estructura de reporte que nadie puede explicar con claridad. Este prompt convierte una oferta de trabajo en un análisis de riesgos estructurado antes de que inviertas una sola hora aplicando o entrevistándote.
Por qué existe cada sección del prompt
Rol: El prompt le asigna al AI la perspectiva de un coach de carrera que ha revisado miles de ofertas de trabajo y ha observado cuáles se correlacionaron con malos resultados de contratación. Este encuadre importa — un asistente genérico resumirá la oferta de forma neutral; una persona con perfil de coach de carrera está predispuesta a ser escéptica y específica sobre lo que no cuadra.
Contexto: El prompt solicita la situación actual del candidato (búsqueda activa vs. navegación pasiva, tolerancia al riesgo) porque la misma señal de alerta significa cosas distintas según el nivel de ventaja que tenga el candidato. Una frase como "usar muchos sombreros" representa un riesgo mayor para alguien que deja un trabajo estable que para alguien desempleado que necesita ingresos de inmediato.
Tarea: La tarea central se divide en tres verificaciones — realismo del alcance (si la lista de requisitos coincide con las señales de antigüedad y salario), transparencia en la compensación (si se divulga el sueldo y si se alinea con lo que se solicita) y señales del proceso (cantidad de rondas de entrevista, claridad sobre a quién reportarías) — porque agrupar todas las señales de alerta en una respuesta vaga de "esto parece arriesgado" no es accionable.
Restricciones: El prompt le indica explícitamente al modelo que no sea reflexivamente negativo con cada oferta — la mayoría tiene alguna redacción imperfecta que en realidad no es una señal de alerta, y una herramienta que marca todo es tan inútil como una que no marca nada.
Formato de salida: El resultado es una lista marcada (no un párrafo) específicamente para que un candidato pueda revisarla en menos de un minuto antes de decidir si aplica, seguida de una lista breve de preguntas de entrevista diseñadas para revelar la verdad detrás de cada señal sin sonar confrontacional.
El prompt
Act as a career coach who has reviewed thousands of job postings and tracked which red flags actually predicted bad hiring outcomes for candidates.
CONTEXT:
- My current situation: [ACTIVELY SEARCHING / PASSIVELY BROWSING / URGENTLY NEED A JOB]
- My risk tolerance for an imperfect role right now: [LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH]
- The job posting text: [PASTE FULL JOB POSTING HERE]
TASK:
Analyze this posting across three dimensions:
1. Scope realism — does the requirements list match the seniority level and stated salary (if given)? Flag phrases like "wear many hats," "other duties as assigned," or skill lists that don't match the title.
2. Compensation transparency — is a salary range disclosed? If disclosed, does it plausibly match the requirements list? If undisclosed, note that as a flag.
3. Process and structure signals — anything indicating an unclear reporting line, an unusually high number of interview rounds for the seniority level, or vague team/role descriptions.
CONSTRAINTS:
- Do not flag normal, boilerplate job-posting language as a red flag — only flag things with a specific, plausible negative interpretation.
- For every flag raised, note how serious it is given my stated risk tolerance.
- Do not recommend whether to apply — only surface the risks so I can decide.
OUTPUT FORMAT:
1. Flagged Issues (bulleted, one line each: [flag] — [why it matters] — [severity: low/medium/high given my risk tolerance])
2. Clean Signals (2-3 things about this posting that are actually reassuring, if any)
3. Interview Questions to Ask (3-5 specific, non-confrontational questions designed to get honest answers about the flagged issues)Cómo luce el resultado en la práctica
Para una oferta que describe un puesto de "Senior Marketing Manager" en una startup Serie B con un rango salarial de $70K-$85K pero que exige "más de 10 años de experiencia, gestión de presupuesto de hasta $2M y responsabilidad directa sobre P&L", un resultado típico se leería así:
Conclusiones accionables
- Ejecuta esto en cada oferta antes de aplicar, no solo en las que ya te generan dudas — el valor está en detectar desajustes sutiles entre alcance y salario que de otro modo solo descubrirías en la tercera semana de trabajo.
- Usa las preguntas de entrevista generadas tal cual en tu primera llamada de selección — están redactadas para sonar como curiosidad genuina, no como un interrogatorio, lo que obtiene respuestas más honestas de los reclutadores.
- Si aparecen tres o más señales de alta gravedad para tu tolerancia al riesgo declarada, trátalo como una señal para bajar la prioridad de esa postulación, no como un descarte definitivo — a veces las señales valen la pena si se las considera en contexto.
- Vuelve a ejecutar el prompt después de tu primera entrevista con cualquier información nueva que hayas obtenido — las señales de alerta suelen confirmarse o resolverse en esa primera conversación real.